Waltrip v. Kimberlin
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MORRISON, J.
This case requires us to determine the priority of competing liens, of a judgment creditor and the debtor’s attorney, on settlement proceeds. Plaintiffs appeal from an order authorizing payment of counsel fees and costs from a settlement. Out of the $2.5 million settlement, the order authorized payment of $1,726,632 to counsel for fees and costs and $773,368 to Wells Fargo Bank, a creditor. Plaintiffs, who had sought disbursement of the entire settlement to counsel, contend the trial court erred because the attorney lien had priority over Wells Fargo’s creditor lien.
We…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Cetenko v. United California BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- City and County of San Francisco v. SweetCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Sunset Drive Corp. v. City of RedlandsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
- Carroll v. Interstate Brands Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2002
- Haupt v. Charlie's Kosher MarketCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- United States v. KimCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Friends of Shingle Springs Interchange, Inc. v. County of El DoradoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Gilman v. DalbyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Imagine Fulfillment Services, LLC v. DC Media Capital, LLC (In re Imagine Fulfillment Services, LLC)United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · 2013
- United States v. Christopher KimCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.